The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has posted online a draft version of federal form 4473 (Firearm Transaction Record) revising the definition of an “unlawful” drug user.
Historically, the agency has defined any person with a history of cannabis use as an “unlawful user” and legally prohibited them from lawfully purchasing or possessing a firearm. The revised form acknowledges that this prohibition no longer applies to those who exclusively consume state-authorized medical cannabis products, which the Justice Department recently reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
The ATF’s revisions are not yet official, as several other proposed changes to the form require public comments.
“Acceptance of the newly proposed rule would mean that no state-legal medical cannabis patient will any longer have to choose between either their medicine or their constitutional right to bear arms,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “Further, it provides the legal basis for recognizing 2nd Amendment protections for all responsible cannabis consumers if the federal government ultimately decides to reschedule botanical cannabis — as proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services.”
In 2024, the HHS formally published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to reclassify all botanical cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. Last month, the Justice Department announced that the DEA will initiate new administrative hearings “with respect to the proposed rescheduling of marijuana” beginning June 29, 2026. Prior hearings, scheduled for last year, failed to take place following the issuance of an interlocutory appeal.
NORML has long sought for the reinstatement of consumers’ constitutional protections and has successfully litigated in appellate court on behalf of patients’ ability to legally own firearms. Earlier this year, NORML filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in US v. Hemani, arguing that the government’s blanket ban on gun ownership for cannabis consumers lacks any historical precedent and is unconstitutional. The Court has yet to render a decision in that case.
NORML’s amicus brief in United States v. Hemani is available in NORML’s Brief Bank.
Related
Medical Disclaimer:
The information provided in these blog posts is intended for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. The use of any information provided in these blog posts is solely at your own risk. The authors and the website do not recommend or endorse any specific products, treatments, or procedures mentioned. Reliance on any information in these blog posts is solely at your own discretion.
